6: Federal Courts

Federal Courts

Jurisdiction

  • Jurisdiction – right of a court to consider a particular course
    • Ex. local traffic courts → jurisdiction over speeding tickets but not for drugs
  • Article III of Constitution gives 2 types of jurisdiction to federal courts:
  • Federal jurisdiction – cases involving constitution, federal laws, cases where gov is a party…
    • Any law can be challenged in Supreme Court even if it started in state court
  • Diversity jurisdiction – fed court can hear case if it involves $75,000 and two states on opposing sides
    • Back then, concern that state courts would be biased against other state citizens
    • Cases with ppl from diff states can be tried in fed court instead IF stakes were high enough
    • Now $75,000 but amt based on claims made by plaintiff (complainer)
    • Defendant can’t decide amt, but can ask fed court to hear a case filed in state court

Appellate and Original Jurisdiction

  • Diff set of jurisdiction rules for Supreme Court – can decide which cases to hear
  • Has 2 types of fed jurisdiction: appellate and original
  • Appellate jurisdiction – cases appealed to Supreme Court from lower fed court or form state supreme court
    • Most cases from here
    • Congress can alter appellate jurisdiction of fed courts
  • Original jurisdiction – cases first in Supreme Court rather than in lower court
    • Ex. ambassadors of other countries
    • Ex. disputes between states over boundaries, etc
  • Only supreme court has both appellate and original

Structure of the Lower Federal Courts

District Courts

  • District courts → circuit courts → supreme court
  • District courts – most cases in fed system are heard
    • Trial courts: hear evidence and determine facts
    • Heard by 1 judge
    • Multiple in a state, doesn’t cross state boundaries

Circuit Courts

  • After case is heard in fed district courts → can appeal to fed circuit
  • Circuit courts – 13 intermediate appellate courts in fed system
    • Must hear appeal from district courts
    • Heard by 3 judges
    • Judges randomly chosen
  • Only hears cases looking for mistakes of law, not re-establishing facts of a case
  • Covers multiple states = multiple district courts

Supreme Court

  • \   # of judges not specified in Constitution (now 9)
    • FDR tried to increase 9→15; Congress struck down
    • Court Packing Plan – add more judges to make passing laws more favorable

Selecting Cases in the Supreme Court

  • Court has discretionary docket – can decide what case to hear (usually only hears 80-90 cases)
  • Decides what to hear using Rule of Four
    • if 4/9 justices agree to hear a case
    • 4 not a majority = minority is not oppressed
  • Hears only most imp cases
    • when lower fed courts have diff outcomes in similar cases
    • From rec of solicitor general – member of exec branch tasked with rep interests of fed gov before Court

Procedure in the Supreme Court

  • Writ of certiorari – when Supreme Court decides to hear a case, they order lower court to send up record of case
    • Aka hearing on the merits: starts with briefing by parties in the case
    • Legal brief – written argument favoring one side or other
    • Amicus curiae briefs – third party brief to give Court with extra info
    • Usually briefs favor one side more
  • Oral arguments after briefing is done
    • Lawyers have 30 min each to present case in person
    • Justices interrupt argument often
  • Conference after arguments
    • Justices give initial vote for petitioner (party who lost in lower court) or respondent (party who won in lower level)
    • Vote intentions announced in order of least to most senior
    • Chief justice goes last (apted by pres)
    • Seniority based on time of appointment
    • Order is imp bc chief justice can switch their vote to make a majority → gives them power to assign opinion writing task to themselves or justice of choosing
  • After opinion is written → justices make comments on draft opinion
    • Author makes changes to hold together a majority
    • Dissenting opinion – separate opinion written by justice
    • By group who disagree with majority coalition
  • Justice can also write concurring opinion – agree with outcome but not reason for conclusion

Selecting Federal Judges

  • Fed judges have life tenure – serve for life under Article III of Constitution
    • Except for Article I Congress chosen judges
    • Serve until they retire, die or impeached
    • Meant to insulate def judges from political pressure
  • Pres consults with senators from given state on who they want on court
    • Ex. for district court in SoCal, consult California senators but more likely to listen to those in the same party
  • Most apartment decisions affected by pres’ preferences
    • Those who share similar ideologies
  • Lots of conflict over Supreme Court aptments
    • ex) nominee Robert Bork, 1987 by Reagan
    • Rejected by Senate after liberal interest groups campaigned against him bc of views on civil rights and abortion
    • New term: to bork a nominee – defeat using public opinion

Judicial Decision Making

  • Three theories on judicial decision making
    • Model only describes approach used, not that a judge consciously chose it
    • Decisions v context dependent

Policy Preferences Model

  • Policy preferences – preferred outcomes in cases of judges with ideological learnings
    • Liberal, conservative
    • Primary goal of judge – to get their policy preferences made into policy
    • Conflicts with legal model
  • Q’s from the model
    • Does the law pose constraints on use of preferences
    • Is it appropriate to use their own preferences for decisions
    • Can institutional rules impose constraints on use of preferences
  • Policy preferences model applies most strongly at Supreme Court bc…
    • Judges choose case they hear
    • Cases where law is ambiguous → law unlikely to constrain justices’ preference decision
    • No review of Supreme Court decision by another court
  • Model weakens father down the hierarchy
    • Circuit courts – constraint by law that favors one side (90%)
    • Non-law constraint (10%): decision can be reviewed by Supreme Court → decision does’t match with S Court, Court can reverse decision
    • District courts – same 2 constraints as above, but more (99%)
    • Both circuit and S Court can review

Strategic Model

  • Strategic model – goal for judges is to use their policy preferences to guide their decisions
    • Judges also think abt other actors when making their policy preferences policy
    • Ex. chief justice votes against preferences to control who writes an opinion → second-best choice to give up a liberal outcome to stop a strongly conservative one for a less conservative one
  • Happens when…
    • Judges think ahead on reactions
    • Supreme Court: must be strategic bc need to build coalition to pass something
    • Strategic in selection of cases
  • Also considered how other branches of fed gov will react
    • Might alter choice to not anger Congress or pres
    • Congress can strip Court of jurisdiction
    • Ex Parte McCardle – Congress took away jurisdiction to stop court from reaching a decision that’s against Congress’ interests
  • Also explains a lot of circuit court (but not as much as Supreme Court)
    • Circuit court considers how other 2 judges would rule
    • Might consider review and reversal of decisions by Supreme Court
    • Reversals: damages reputation of circuit court judge
    • Opposing opinion from fellow judge increases chance of review by Court
  • District court – less avenues for strategic decision making
    • Decide cases by themselves
    • Can be reviewed by circuit court BUT most district court decisions are affirmed
    • Bc decided by law (straightforward)

The Legal Model

  • Legal model – decision based on law
    • Precedent
    • Plain meaning/txt
    • Lawmaker intent
  • Precedent – decisions made in similar cases should control decision in current case
    • Used in both fed and state legal systems
    • Mismatch → judge can dismiss precedent they don’t like for their own preferences
  • Plain meaning – laws must be read carefully to understand meaning
    • Language can be ambiguous → room for judges to inject preferences
  • Lawmaker intent – interpret law based on lawmaker’s intent when writing that law
    • Not always clear, not v clear if it should control interpretation of law
  • How much does it constrain the use of preferences in decision making?
    • S Court: not much bc justices choose cases where law is ambiguous
  • Law matters more in lower levels
    • More constraining for circuit and district → can’t choose legally ambiguous cases
    • Subject to review
  • Policy preferences model:
    • Mostly Supreme Court
  • Strategic model:
    • S Court and circuit court
  • Legal model:
    • Controls most cases but NOT most imp cases